County Surveyor threaten to me

[LS 4722]

Whats the big deal about filing a Record of Survey

Usually county fees. Orange County however is a one of a kind California County, they do not charge for a RS review.

I prefer to do RS than CR. Los Angeles County is pretty reasonable, they only charge $ 170 for a one sheet map.

[rpost]

I vote we destroy the Corner Record and force Cities to charge reasonable fees for Record of Survey maps. By reasonable, I mean $0. I just submitted a Corner Record with so much crap on it, it's almost offensive. I sure would like to justify a Record of Survey to my client.

Additionally, a reasonable priced Record of Survey would alleviate the terrible discussion with my client where I inform him that I must file a Record of Survey now. Maybe….. some of the crooked surveyors would even file. Actually, probably not, they would have to have solid procedures.

Just my 2 cents.

[Dave Karoly, PLS]

You have to convince every County Surveyor that Record of Survey maps benefit the public and future generations, not just the client. I think most of them agree with that statement but there are some that don't. Then the County Surveyor has to convince the Board of Soups that the fees should be very low or zero. The CS obviously needs to be on board with it so that he can take it to the Soups.

Or get State law changed.

We should be doing everything we can to remove excuses for non-compliance so that we get more compliance.

[Anthony Maffia]

I vote we destroy the Corner Record and force Cities to charge reasonable fees for Record of Survey maps.

I whole heartily agree with the second part. I like CRs for simple stuff, and reasonable to me is $250 max state wide. At least one county I know charges six times that...

[LS 4722]

I vote we destroy the Corner Record and force Cities to charge reasonable fees for Record of Survey maps. By reasonable, I mean $0. .

I would venture a wild guess (based upon very good information) that Orange County's cost to check a one sheet RS runs $ 1000 +.

I like CR's. I vote they stay.

I just submitted a Corner Record with so much crap on it, it's almost offensive.

I would love to see that Ryan. I have done 5 page CR's just to provide a record for monument preservation.

[Ric7308]

Getting back to the original inquiry posted by BoundaryMan...

It's been my experience that many times when a threat is perceived to have been delivered during a conversation, the threat is actually more a perception by the recipient rather than how it was actually delivered. Especially if the topic of discussion included a difference of opinion and one of those individuals could be considered as representative of authority. While I believe I am not naive enough to realize that sometimes a threat is real, I fail to understand the benefit of directing one or perceiving one in this situation.

My advice to BoundaryMan would be to consider how much the peer review and considerations received from the County Surveyors' Office can benefit him as he traverses his career in land surveying. While everyone is not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, the pros of effectively communicating with the County Surveyors' Office far outweigh the cons, for both sides.

Looking at the comments in response to the original post and understanding that pretty much everyone understands the intent of the pertinent laws, it should be important to consider that regardless of the the various checking procedures employed across the state in regards to Corner Records or Records of Survey or costs involved, the laws only represent the absolute minimum requirements that a professional should employ while performing their regulated services.

There is far too many discussions and concerns expressed as to the interpretation or application of the minimum requirements and rarely any discussion on how important or valid it is to consider actions that exceed those state minimum requirements as a normal standard of practice and which could prove to be more beneficial to the clients. I see this many times while exposed to disciplinary actions, but these arguments are often mirrored in open forums (here, seminars, workshopes, etc.). I can't help but wonder why there appears to be a mad rush to demonstrate a superior level of competency in performing or providing only the minimal requirements.

I sincerely hope that BoundaryMan considers the comments expressed here by those offering constructive advice and continues to utilize the County Surveyors' Office as a valuable resource.

[LS 4722]

However you stated earlier in this thread that OC does not charge the surveyor or his client for R/S submittals...

They don't Woodcutter....


When I said

Originally Posted by LS 4722
I would venture a wild guess (based upon very good information) that Orange County's cost to check a one sheet RS runs $ 1000 +.

I was referring to the county's cost to do so.

Clearer?

I'm probably the confused one..I'm in a rush to get to Ventura now and I am still in Glendale

[bruce hall]

Below is a post that I made back in 2010 regarding Corner Records in a thread on this board.

""When Gary Shelton,the CS here in the OC pitched the idea of the Corner Record law to the local chapter, he said "Listen guys, all we need/want to be shown on this thing is four lines and four circles. That's it. We just want to know who has been out there and did a lot survey." This is '82 or somewhere around there. There was a push to get more survey records into the system. "THEY" said it would be better for everyone and this was one way to do it.

And if one looks at the CR's here in the OC between 85 and 90, they showed more than that, but not a whole lot more. They showed bearings and distances that were not record and measured, distances that had two or three or 4 tenths here or there, no big deal in a 600 foot block.

In fact some just showed record and measured down a line, didn't go around the block,just turned right angles and went record. And everything is good in the world.

We were not supposed to need a lot of room for these surveys. It is 4 lines and a few circles. That's all more or less. No survey the world stuff. Only have a 8 1/2 x 11 to work with. And no surveys of lines that were not shown on a map somewhere, and this is not a AP map either.

At least we knew someone was out there. That was the idea/thought as it was explained to me almost 30 years ago.

Prior to 1982 or 83 RS's were not filed for "simple" lot surveys. There really was no vehicle for recording these surveys except for the RS unless the surveyor wanted to draw one up and have it filed. And these lot surveys were not all record and measured crap either. There was prorating. Non record monuments found and used. And after all was said and done it fit the fence not too badly. And everything was good in the world.

Granted the survey that started this whole thread isn't necessarily your "simple" survey although it seems as though some perceive it to be, and maybe it is.

I am sure that I am off topic. I hope that survey gets filed as inexpensive as possible and I think that I will just leave it at that. I've talked way too long as it is. I just hope nothing else comes of this.""

That is what I wrote a couple of years back. I do a lot of work in the OC and almost invariably the surveys that I perform find something or kicks something up that triggers the RS requirement. I don't know why that didn't happen too much before 1982, but I know it does now.

[BoundaryMan]

I agree with Woodcutter.
This forum is so valuable that not only to learn, to share and to voice out concerns. I must agree that being a practicing engineer for many years, I never seen anything like this forum.

[Dave Karoly, PLS]

Surveying boundaries is not an Engineering problem which must have rules rigidly applied to it. It is a legal problem. It is a type of professional judgement 180 degrees from Engineering judgement. The Courts do not apply engineering economics to legal problems.

Justice Cooley said it best:
"When a man has had a training in one of the exact sciences, where every problem within its purview is supposed to be susceptible of accurate solution, he is likely to be not a little impatient when he is told that, under some circumstances, he must recognize inaccuracies, and govern his action by facts which lead him away from the results which theoretically he ought to reach. Observation warrants us in saying that this remark may frequently be made of surveyors."

[Ric7308]

Woodcutter,

I appreciate the feedback to my earlier comments and have some of my own in response to yours...

The learning in this thing we call surveying never stops. Debates about CR v RS, and the countless myriad of simple and complex issues are extremely valuable.

I cannot argue the education never stops and that healthy debates are valuable to all of us, no matter how many years we've been licensed. However, have you ever looked through the historical posts, California Surveyor articles, etc. and recognized the disproportionate amount of expression devoted to avoiding preparation of Corner Records and Records of Survey in comparison those devoted to the merits of those land records?

Much of what we do is not defined. What is a minimum standard operating practice for boundary control? What is a minimum required closure? What is the minimum field procedure necessary for a situation? And on and on.

Quite a few other states have minimum technical standards defined in laws related to land surveying, California does not. And I like that. I believe that if we need that level of definition in law so that we can consistently practice and provide services to the public, then we are all just technicians. I believe that the laws in California are such that allow us to practice with the ability to exercise our independent and professional judgement. Many times, posts and threads refer to map checking comments that delve into technical aspects that provide nothing more than a technician level review of the submitted material. Do you (or anyone else) wish to insert technical standards into the laws to the level of "minimum required closure" that gives reviewers the authority to dictate your level of judgement when it comes to that topic? If so, why are you (assuming you are) licensed? Why would you need to be? Do you wish that to be taken away with a simple act of the legislature that will dilute this by assigning it as a ministerial act to reviewers?

To not provide our clients with the most cost effective solution, and instead only present the gold plated product, is deceptive and one which borders on unethical. For instance, to tell a client a R/S is necessary, when a CR does meet the minimum requirement, is not being honest to the client.

I don't feel that providing a Record of Survey or a Corner Record is a "gold plated product". I believe that providing a map to my client is a normal course of practice. I do not see the difference between a Record of Survey or any other map that I provide. I cannot recall in my 30+ years of happily being employed in the land surveying profession across at least 4 states very many situations where a map was not delivered to the client, regardless of whether it was mandated by law or not. It is (or should be) the best source of communication between you and your client. It should be representative of the quality and validity of your services. It is the best marketing tool for you and for all land surveyors as it possesses the ability to make us all look good or bad.

In a way, I think that sometimes that all of us land surveyors (myself included) have an inferiority complex about the value of our services. I think that is a natural byproduct of another common characteristic with land surveyors...we care about our work and the impact it has on others.

[BoundaryMan]

I have no problem at all to file RS if it calls for.

The attached 3 situations are encountered daily by land surveyors. 8762 will trigger RS no matter what. Then, strictly speaking, CR can never be used on boundary establishment.

Ric, I respect your experience and qualification, why don’t you share some with us. Don’t keep your valuable experience to yourself…share, share, share among the surveyors community.

Thank you Mr. Page & Mr. Frame for your valuable comments.

LS 4722, Thank you for your valuable input. I have seen your map quite often in LA County.
Lingdquist established the north line of Lot 5 by proration holding the “2nd generationâ€￾ monuments at CL intersections. How would you establish north line of Lot 4 if not proportion; since Lingdquist’s map impart constructive notice and he impeached the found 1â€￾ IP at the NW corner of said Lot 4? I indeed found said 1â€￾ IP off by 0.4’ and the rest of the interior monuments were gone. I proportioned it as it’s the last resort…they are simple mathematic relationship, nothing fancy.

[bruce hall]

wouldn't trigger anything. The other two scenarios I guess would depend if the white space between the pl and the other line is 2 inches or 2 feet.

Two inches, not in my brain. Two feet, I have some drafting to do.

[LS 4722]

[land butcher]

So, are you saying that you missed the older non tagged pipe when you set your 1" pipe?

Sheesh! Why are the old rusty non tagged pipes that are the property corners "Always" ALWAYS!! on the edge of the hole we dig when looking for them??

Gotta check the sides of those holes Butcher :P

My most memorable pipe on hole edge was when I had this chainman that was a bit of a sissy. He would put a towel down on the seat of my International Scout to have a more comfy seat. He also hated getting his hands dirty, said that the gals liked nice smooth hands and not rough ones.

Anyway, we were doing a hillside survey in Glendale in the summer. We were looking for a pipe that was near a chain link fence so the pipe finder was not a good option, time for a shovel and some dirty work.

I started him digging and he started his complaining, especially when the hole got to a depth where hand work and a trowel was necessary to keep going.

After about 10 mins of this, listening to his moaning and groaning about getting his hands all rough and dirty I said to him " Oh my, would you look at that?"

I stood up and right under my right knee was the pipe we were looking for on the very edge of the hole.

As many as it takes. Missing tags, thats not a big problem

No I'm saying You didn't find the right pipe and I did.

[land butcher]

I vote we destroy the Corner Record and force Cities to charge reasonable fees for Record of Survey maps. By reasonable, I mean $0. I just submitted a Corner Record with so much crap on it, it's almost offensive. I sure would like to justify a Record of Survey to my client.

Additionally, a reasonable priced Record of Survey would alleviate the terrible discussion with my client where I inform him that I must file a Record of Survey now. Maybe….. some of the crooked surveyors would even file. Actually, probably not, they would have to have solid procedures.

Just my 2 cents.

I agree.

A R/S is a record of survey and I feel the CS's spend too much time on them to justify their exorbitant fees to review them.

[land butcher]

Back to the original post,

Basically it has become a discussion on how many monuments do you tie in to do your survey.
Everything in CA,exc ranchos, was sectionalized land.
In the Aug 2012 POB pg 42 is a article "A second-class Profession" very interesting court decision there. Should we be finding the "remonumented" section corners and breaking down our lot surveys from there?

[land butcher]

LS 4722 suggests we ignore "reset" ties.

So with new ties and cl mon and no PC what do you use?

Date stamps in concrete gutters, they haven't done that in decades.


There is a block in Midway City that the original surveyors put all the slop in the last lot. This was verified by more than one surveyor and the CS by location of improvements. I don't remember how many original PCs were ever found.
About 5-10 years AFTER the CS had verified that the slop was in the last lot and not prorated the CS (different one) forced the CE I worked for to prorate the lots. This left a crummy fence one homeowner hoped would be torn down and the other adjoiner lost part of his driveway.

Doing lot surveys anymore is a crap shoot and even charging 1% of the property value for a fee it's not worth the liability. Esp reading the varying opinion comments on here.

[Dave Karoly, PLS]

You can come to downtown Sacramento where the curbs are it. Hopefully the numerous Deed lines within the block (most blocks are not in the original standard configuration) line up with the occupation lines. Sometimes they do surprisingly well. I suspect the contractors often pulled off the lot lines themselves from the block edges. The Surveyors laid out the grid of streets but never were involved after that.

So if in 1890 the contractor laid out the new Deed lines himself and the fences have been like that ever since who am I to come along with my proration machine and tell everyone they are off a little? That is why I never get a job in Downtown or even Midtown Sacramento. The curbs are probably no older than the 1930s.

[dmi]

Our job is to collect and evaluate evidence. Often times we are unable to say why or how things are the way they are. We are able to report on what we find and express our opinion based upon the evidence. It is speculation to advance a notion of a boundary location that is not supported by evidence. I would suggest caution and avoidance of speculation where boundary locations are concerned.

We know that we have better, more, powerful tools than in bygone days. Computing power allows us to do things on a regular basis that were near impossbile not so long ago.

I will now speculate that the oldest parts of Sacramento, were probably not laid out radially from a pair or serveral pairs of subdivision control points. There may be many lines with different bearing on the original subdivision maps , where those lines form right angles, and the angles of those lines were never turned nor was a transit used in the setting of the hubs to mark the lot corners.
I had entertained such a speculative notion about subdivisions in San Francisco, then I found the following-.

Prepared by Chas. H. Holcomb, Assistant City Engineer, in his report of the Division of Surveys in the Municipal Report to the Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco date June 30,1911,
“In making surveys of private property in the old portion of the City (the Fifty Vara District) where today, it is valued at thousands of dollars per front foot, in the early years the City and County surveyors in many cases, did not use a transit or any surveying instrument, other than a steel tape; there were not street monuments or other surveyor’s points or data to guide them… in many cases, they simply measured from the nearest existing improvements and marked on the ground a piece of property the dimensions called for by the owner. This is the principal cause of the irregular lines and widths of streets in the Fifty Vara District.”
Now based upon the comments of the Assitant City Engineer from 1911, when and if I find "irregular lines" in the Fifty Vara District now my notion about how and why things are the way I find them, might be less speculative because I have evidence to support the opinion.
As for concrete stamping, I look for it all the time. I have attached two recovered samples. I find it useful to be able to estimate the age of improvements.
"That section over there is new concrete." "This section right here is old" These are speculations. " I found a cut cross in what appears to be new concrete." "I found a cut cross in what appears to be old concrete." "The old cross is very faint and looks weathered." It just so happens I am retracing lots in a subdivision filed for recordation in July of 1923. I found a cut cross in an area of sidewalk stamped 2007 and I found a cut cross in an area stamped 1924. So now comes the the time to consider how we will handle the evidence to form our opinion.

[LS 4722]

No I'm saying You didn't find the right pipe and I did.

Ohh...my bad!

Don't know how I could have missed that!

Please provide a link to the CR or RS where I show the wrong pipe LB.. OK?

[LS 4722]

LS 4722 suggests we ignore "reset" ties. .

Would you like me to post a recent experience..like yesterday? I would be more than happy to oblige.

Date stamps in concrete gutters, they haven't done that in decades.

That's why you look for them. You can determine the date of the curb and the reference points, recorded and unrecorded, in the curb.

Have you ever come across undocumented original monuments before?

[land butcher]

Ohh...my bad!

Don't know how I could have missed that!

Please provide a link to the CR or RS where I show the wrong pipe LB.. OK?

Your statement was hypothetical so was mine with regards to you and me.

I have found a newer pipe driven at an angle because the original pipe was in the way.

[land butcher]

Seeing as how I found 3 newer LA CTY engr spk and washers with ties skewed to the original CL because they ignored their own old ties and went into the next block, I would say I am pretty good at what I do. But then I am biased.

And I don't get mad I get even. You can ask the City of Long Beach about that. People that "do I say not as I do" find out they have to follow the rules too.

[LS 4722]

Your statement was hypothetical so was mine with regards to you and me.

I know, I was just being a smart ass. Yesterday was a long day. Up at 3 AM, left Glendale at 4:30 AM to drive out of county, back at 5 PM or so. Day before was worse, did not walk into the house until 9 PM.

Seeing as how I found 3 newer LA CTY engr spk and washers with ties skewed to the original CL because they ignored their own old ties and went into the next block, I would say I am pretty good at what I do. But then I am biased. [/QUOTE

I have experienced the same thing with LA and some surrounding cities.

One particular new line creation done by LA Survey was in the Mt Washington area. I had done a lot survey using city c/l some years before and then I get back in the area and I see two city S/W for one point. The farther away from Figueroa I go, the discrepancy becomes larger.

Long to short...

I called LA Survey to find out why two sets of monuments exist now and was told that 'someone' in charge had decided that a fresh run up into the hills was needed, so they used Figueroa as a baseline and ran up the streets using record..

Simply amazing!